O/T DDay for Brexit..well sort of...

[KerrAvon]

OK, to be precise just on Davis' - he pledged to achieve the exact same benefits shortly after the referendum. And this pledge was taken, along with the list of other pledges, promises, call it what you will by the Government into their negotiations.

1. Don't you think that we should hold them accountable for this list of promises and pledges that influenced our vote to leave the EU?

Starmer, upon releasing the 6 tests quoted carefully that “Failure to meet the tests I have set out today will of course affect how Labour votes in the house of commons.”

Note the use of the words "will of course affect how labour votes in the commons". As at the same time, Labour were identifying as their priority the protection of jobs and the economy saying that their negotiating focus would be as much preservation of the CU as possible (which of course will involve major country splitting concessions - what deal wouldn't, as we see clearly now).

2. As you have stated opposition to Brexit, I assume for economical reasons, exactly why do you think that it is so wrong to set out basic expectations, based on the promises of the winning party in the referendum, that will "affect" how you vote in the commons in response to the deal achieved? I could understand it if a) the Labour party were saying that they would automatically reject a deal if all 6 demands were not met and 2) as you say, a Labour enforced No Deal was a direct consequence. In response to a) I would say that that Labour would not reject out of hand, but they would weigh up the deal against the 6 tests with a strong focus on the CU and b) I don't think a Commons rejection would lead to a No Deal automatically, as that does not have a mandate. The EU knows this and would allow time for a complete rethink, be that a Government collapse or another referendum. The EU want us to remain, don't you agree?

Do I think the current deal is acceptable?

I don't on the grounds that whilst we may be tied into a CU during the withdrawal period, there is very little about our relationship afterwards, except that the Government is confident of an end to free movement and that we can make trade deals with other countries. But at what expense in our trade deal with the EU? Until I know exactly what that will be, I won't support the deal. I assume that's the Labour position too.

3. What's your position? Are you happy with May's deal? Why/not? Where would you like to see us go from here? (It would be lovely to see you actually stick your neck out and give your political stance for a change. All you seem to do is criticise others? Aren't you very confident in your own political position. I note your failure to answer my questions yesterday - yet you seem quite frustrated when people keep calling you a Tory! You never come up with any position that isn't in perfect alignment with Tory policy, what are we supposed to think?!).

Happy Sunday

So you were wrong when you claimed, that Davis made an ‘exact same benefits’ promise before the referendum? Unfortunately, you are still wrong when you claim that he made a ‘pledge’ shortly after the referendum. There was no pledge and it was seven months after the referendum.

Of course, whether it was weeks or months after the referendum doesn’t really matter - either way, your claim that it was a promise or a pledge (what do you say is the difference?) that influenced our vote to leave the EU cannot be correct can it?

If you open a post with OK, to be precise, it would be helpful if what followed immediately thereafter was accurate.

I’m not that interested in what Starmer said when he announced the six tests; I’m interested in what he is saying now and how it is influencing the actions of the Labour Party. In his speech to the Labour Party conference in September, he said:

So, let me be very clear – right here, right now: If Theresa May brings back a deal that fails our tests – and that looks increasingly likely – Labour will vote against it.

So there you have it, as you have admitted, Labour is hiding the reality of the consequences of it tests and intent upon playing political games. In doing so, they are ignoring the interests of the country and risking a no deal Brexit by using tests that cannot be met short of either staying in the EU or having a deal that involves paying money to the EU, accepting the four freedoms, being subject to the European Court of Justice and above all abiding by EU rules that we will have no say in. That is something that they need to be held to account for.

For the privilege of the deal that it has and which you apparently want this country to emulate, Norway, is the 10th biggest contributor to the EU budget and allows EU trawlers to fish in its waters. I don’t see that as a good outcome. I think you can wish away any seats in fishing ports too – they’ll be going to UKIP.

You appear very confused about what the deal is that was announced last week. It is the withdrawal deal, which is why ‘there is very little about our relationship afterward’. It confirms the end of free movement and the ending of the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies – it isn’t about a continuing relationship save that it provides a ‘backstop’ of country wide membership of the CU until a trade deal is reached, (which, from experience, may take a some time – about ten years for Canada?). To state the obvious for you, nobody is going to know what the final trading arrangement with the EU will be until it has been negotiated.

I feel the same disquiet that many MPs do about the deal, which is that the backstop is not time limited and cannot be unilaterally ended by the UK (of course, in practice it can be, but that might cause some friction with our then former EU partners). That being said, I suspect it is the best that the EU is going to offer -they have already given more than I thought they would – and it is infinitely better than the no deal outcome that Labour is risking with its gaming. It is far less restrictive than the Norwegian model that you favour…

P.s. I don’t feel at all frustrated when people call me a Tory, just as I don’t when the right wingers call me a ‘liberal apologist’ etc. I express opinions that people don’t like and rather than debate, some people choose to label. It’s the way it is – I just like accuracy.

[KerrAvon]

Corporate taxes, tell me again why companies arent streaming out of Europe right now, given that their corporation taxes are much higher than our own....

I could tell again you why companies aren’t streaming out of Europe right now, but what would be the point? If we established just one thing back in July, it was that you just don’t get it. Here’s the thread – I’ll leave you to it:

http://boards.footymad.net/showthrea...ht=corporation

Partially nationalising companies large PUBLIC companies, you said it yourself, PUBLIC, things like energy and water should not be run for dividend....all the evidence points to poor service in privately run utilities and rail.....

You are confused about what a public company is. Here’s a link:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...public-company

Labour aren’t just talking about nationalising energy and water, they are talking about taking 10% of every public company with 250 or more employees. It will result in carnage for jobs and tax revenues and destroy pension fund values. It is easily the most stupid idea to come out of the current Labour Party.

Slipping the leash off unions? moreso ensuring that companies actually treat their workforce in the proper manner, maybe you're enjoying the country's fall back to victorian values, bring back the chimney sweeping boys eh...

We’ll never agree on the unions. You think the NUM did a sterling job, I think they made the ending of the mining industry inevitable.

[KerrAvon]

chakrabarti was destroyed by Andrew Marr today, after poo-pooing the agreement she was continually asked what she would actually do, all she could do is shake, avoid answering and talking nonesense.

Not since Diane Abbots previous weak performance has anyone been so embarrassing on a politics show.

I have watched a clip. My, was she taken aback when Marr told her not to patronise him. As with ragings posts, she lifted the corner of the cover that sits over the Labour plans for Brexit when she talked about employment and environmental protection featuring in the deal they would do. In other words, they are intent upon accepting the continuing jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. There are as many versions of what Brexit means as there are Brexit voters, but I don’t think many people envisaged that when they put their cross in the Leave box.

[KerrAvon]

This country is begging for the OLD Labour Party Politics to come back and move us forward as a country

The country didn't seem to know that they were begging for Labour in last years General Election.

[MillerBill]

I think the Brexit campaign was fortold 42 years ago by the great Billy Ocean when he sang the immortal words “ Leave really hurts without EU and it’s breaking my heart but what can I do” He also made reference to the leave campaign when he sang “Go and get stuffed” - at least I thought that’s what he said but my hearing isn’t so good.

I can't comment on your hearing but your understanding of the EU is wrong.Probably listening to Project Fear and totally ignoring the reality regarding the shambles the EU is in.I think the young unemployed within the eurozone are saying to Brussels "go and get stuffed".

[rolymiller]

The country didn't seem to know that they were begging for Labour in last years General Election.

Simple answer bias of the press at election times. You yourself admit that the judicial system is corrupt so why not the press as well? Similar thing powerful bodies =corruption.

[KerrAvon]

I can understand why the simple answer would appeal to you, but I suspect that the actual answer would be somewhat less palatable, which is that there are still enough people who recognise what a disaster the current Labour set up would create if they got into goverment - unemployment and poverty for the many, not the few.

Outside of your imagination, I don't believe that I have ever 'admitted' that the judicial sytem is corrupt.

[rolymiller]

We all know you don't want the Labour party in power but none of us know what/ who you do want in power. Are you saying that we would be better off with no government at all? Come on nail your colours to a mast of some descriptionL

Ok, if you don't mind, I will do it for you. I dont want Labour in and I am not a tory by incllnation but feel they would be better for the country than Labour because they have better policies generally. Is that a fair statement to make on your behalf. Why is it/ Why is it not? Feel free to agree or disagree with me many on here are intrigued about what you think about the tory party. We are all familiar with your views on Labour but not really on the tories its almost as though they dont exist for you.

If you feel you can't vote for the tories, why not? I would say a lot of tories on here would agree with your view points and would be surprised themselves why you would not vote tory.

Which policies dont/ do you like of the tories?

[KerrAvon]

I'm far more interested in your suggestion that I have admitted that ' that the judicial system is corrupt'. Are you doing an Exile and declining to put up a link?

[flourbasher]

Just to take a time out on this thread and say that it's been one of the best non footie threads on MM for years.

I've dipped in a little bit by confirming where I stand and I actually disagree with a large proportion of the opinions being made but it's great to hear what other people think and why they think like they do.

Some good debating and goes against the impression of your archetypal football supporter.
..............I've ignored some of the bickering